Thursday, March 17, 2011

TNJ........... More of BG's Creative Accounting......

Part One

Personally I thought the problems with BG's accounting sheet spoke loudly to the arrogance of BG and WF. They thought they could say whatever they wanted and get away with it. The problem was when you tell lies, they come back to bite you because it's hard to keep them straight. BG did not keep his facts straight in any way shape or form on that accounting sheet.

If you noticed in the monthly accounting BG made references under a number of months that say "horse show did not affect." What that specifically means I could see by doing the math. BG had charged me for training 9 horses most months (one month of 6) for an entire week (and one month 2 weeks) in each of those months when he was gone to a horse show. None of the horses he was supposed to be working were trained during that time. Those horses were not even in his care then. Most of them were here on my farm.

Clearly he had made deductions other months for work missed because of his health and he even adjusted his totals for the week we were at regionals in June to 3 horses for that week even though he didn't work those horses. (although he charged me $100 per horse for that week when a weekly charge would have been more in line with $75).

All of these adjustments proved the man knew he was supposed to be working a 5 day work week. For some reason he thought he could get away with charging me for those days he was gone to horse shows. Whether he thought he could change the terms of our contract and charge for training or whether he was totally comfortable doing whatever he felt like BG had now decided he should get paid for training horses even when he was gone, like other trainers do, despite was our original agreement said.

That, however, was not what our contract stated with training at the rate of $300 per month working 5 days a week, what it means is pretty clear and,like I said above, his actions applying a credit for sick days etc, suggests he knows that. These terms may not be the standard for the industry for training but it was one of the terms of our contract. BG even clearly stated those terms in his own court documents.

I might add that it is also not standard in the industry for the owner to be hauling the horses TO the trainer to be worked. Normally, horses in training are housed with the trainer so even if the trainer is gone to a show, the trainer is still responsible for them. Those horse should still be being cared for and exercised by someone. That was not the case here. The horses were being housed here at my farm. If I was gone, my family was caring for these horses. That's one of the reasons that provision for a 5 day work week was important to me.

I would never have agreed to the contract without that provision. BG didn't have the right to change it without my approval. The law clearly states changes can only be made with the approval of both parties. BG needed those numbers to say the horse had been paid for even though he hadn't done the work. The fact he had indicated so boldly *horse show does not affect clearly suggests BG didn't feel the need to play by the rules.

In addition to these weeks when we were all gone to horse shows, there was a week where BG and WF were gone to a horse show in Oregon that I did not attend. I worked all of my horses myself while he was gone, yet BG charged me for 9 horses worked that week as well so that month instead of working horses for 4 weeks he had worked them for only two, if that, and he'd still charged me for a full month for each of those 9 horses.

To document for the court that WF had been to the show and I hadn't, I had show records for both or us. I was also prepared to get a statement from the show secretary that I had not participated in that show and that both BG and WF had been there. In addition I had records for all the shows we had attended to prove that we were gone so my young horses could not have been trained during that time.

In addition to the horse shows he charged me for working horses when he was gone, he also charge me for working horses when I was gone to the two horses shows I managed for the Morgan Horse Club of Washington. Because I was gone, I was not hauling horses to his farm so my horses were not worked and he sure didn't come here to work them, despite what he may have claimed. I had documents like the prize list , emails from USEF and receipts for my expenses at those shows including my hotel room substantiating I had indeed been the show manager for that show and out of town for the entire week.

I also had BG's own accounting sheet saying that he had worked horses for me when I was out of town that shows he knows I was gone. However, he did not make an adjustment for me being gone on the contrary, he added an additional charge for those days. That would show his tendencies double dipping. We would see those again.

I printed out show records of the horses from his barn to prove that we were on the road. I had statements of witnesses that the horses BG was training were here on my farm and not being trained and that BG has not every worked horses on my farm.

Overall BG charged me $4350 for training when either he or I were gone to horse shows and no training was done. Not a huge sum but as you can see when you begin to add up the cost of all these ways BG padded what he was owed, the total gets to be pretty hefty. $2400 for Dandy, $6300 for conditioning halter horses, added to this $4350 and we're already up to $13,500. That total excludes an adjustment for the pen which would bring up to $14,400.

We haven't even gotten to the really BIG issues yet and these figures still give BG more than his due because he really didn't have that board coming at all and he sure didn't have 9 months worth of time a horse was in that pen. BG's accounting of training and that board for the pen at this point as been whittled down from $32,000 to about $18,000. We still have those additional charges on the last page to contend with and, of course, all of the other days besides horse shows that BG did not work horses.

Obviously, for breach of contract, I could have stopped at this point. The purchase price of the horse was $30,000 and BG did not do that much work. I had disproved enough of what BG's accounting to have the amount of money well below what he owed for the horse.

However, I was not willing to put my eggs all in just those baskets despite how obvious I thought they were. I wanted to be sure the court understood each and every thing that BG and WF did to try to steal my horse from me.

I believe the big picture is what exposes BG and WF as the frauds they are. A thing here and one there could easily be written off as a misunderstanding BUT when you put this whole thing together it just boggles the mind. I was counting on that so the court would be able to the maliciousness of their actions and what kind of effect it had on me, my family, my horses and my business. I was no longer just looking to get my horse back. I wanted what I was entitled to having been wronged in this manner and that meant damages.

To be continued.............

BG's Just in Case Sheet....

This is another picture of Dandy at about 6 weeks old, I think. You can still see that attitude is still there although I promise he really was enjoying that hug. He used to run up to me and lean against me to get me to hug him. It's a good thing he stopped that.

Visit Blog Village and vote daily for this blog Here They are now measuring the rankings by votes out, so if you find my blog on the site, please click that link too to improve my rankings. TY


  1. He looks like he's looking at the camera. What a ham!
    Good for you that you went farther in proving that they were defrauding you! The audacity of some people! Just reading about this infuriates me, I can't even imagine how you felt in the thick of it.

  2. Great post again! Keep up the great work!

  3. Love the picture of you and Dandy in the big hug.

    I'll say it again,it's a good thing you had records of when he worked your horses because his fairy tale expenses just don't gel with the actual facts.

    And by the way how do you charge for training horses when you're out of town. Do you dial it in on the phone or maybe use Skype on the computer? Come on...

  4. I think I am getting a sense of it now. He assumed you would see the "credits" and not look to closely at the "creative bits" what I mean is if he gave credit for something not previously agreed upon , you might be so pleased with that that you would ignore the blatant attempts to rob you blind. As though he thought you were not smart. BAD move on his part , because I highly doubt anyone who is or has been paying even the slightest bit of attention would ever dream of questioning your intelligence!!!

  5. I love the picture of you and Dandy. That is really sweet!

    Those accounting figures are amazing--how could he think to charge for working horses when he was gone to shows? :/

  6. Arrogance leads to some awful behavior. I'm so glad you had good records and an excellent mind!

  7. Knowing the workings from the inside the way you do, it would only stand to reason that you would have included that 5-day work week. Things are not looking good for BG and WF.

  8. Nicole, Dandy's definitely always been a ham. LOL

    I was pretty infuriated too and that helped me stay motivated.

    Arlene, being able to hug babies that way is one of the things I love about them.

    Good question, but then with BG most of this was about avoiding work. He was pretty good at that.

    fern, I've pretty much given up trying to figue out how he thought he was going to get away with this. All I can think is he had himself convinced they had power and I didn't but then they seem to have a barn full of people who believe I did them wrong.

    Linda, it's been fun to look at these old baby pics. I'm thinking I should locate some of Legs too.

    It is amazing they really thought they could get away with this. Then when you know MD and GD are aware of this but still support them. There are a lot of odd things here.

    Carol,at this point I can say I'm grateful for the arrogance because it made my case much easier to prove.

    BECG, you're right about that. All this crap gave me a clear picture of what I needed to do to pin them down.

  9. Amazing, how arrogant he was to charge crazy like that, if he would have at least been a little reasonable he probl could have gotten away with it, but not when its over half the price of the horse you guys agreed on!

  10. Dandy was such an adorable baby, I love his little expression in the picture above.

  11. I wonder if he even looked at a calendar and realized there had been no way he could have worked those horses or if his record keeping was that bad that he just threw them on. If that was the case I imagine he was really kicking himself when you stepped in with your records.

    Off topic:) but I was looking at your barn page and wondering how tall Legs is? He has some tall babies out there it seems.

  12. Crystal, I do think he'd have had more of a chance if his dishonesty hadn't been so blatant but I don't think it would have been cut and dried that he'd get away with it.

    JJ, Dandy definitely was adorable as a baby. His face is so expressive and he was such a lover right from the start. He'll always have a special place in my heart.

    horsemom, I think this was just another example of WF's thinking. I suspect she looked at that sheet and thought he should get training for horse shows because other trainers do. Just like she thought if he "touched a horse it counts." Niether really thought about things in terms of the contract. Only in terms of how else to get the totals up.

    This is not the only time they've applied this kind of thinking and probably won't be the last.Their we are friends to everyone persona draws people in to trust them and then the close their trap.

    Legs is about 15.2 I guess. His babies tend to be right about 15 H. Some are bigger, some a little smaller. Most of the mares are average size with the exception of the midget mare. Her foals tend to be on the smaller side but still bigger than she. I'd say maybe a quarter of his get would be considered to be big for Arabs.

  13. I've read through this whole lawsuit story, and it's getting super repetitive so I wish you wouldn't re-post the same thing practically every day. Seriously, go through just the last 5 days and tell me what the differences are between them? Hardly any, it's just a continuance of saying "THEY'RE FRAUDS!" Ok we get it now on to the next chapter already! I'm really curious to see how this turns out but I have been tempted sooo many times to just give up trying to read your blog because it takes you forever to get over one little subject.

    This is constructive criticism and I hope you'll consider writing in a manner that wont bore your followers to death. I know I'm close to not wanting to try anymore because I have to skim over the same old stuff and I fear I'll pass up something important... but you'll probably just post it later AGAIN so I guess maybe I shouldn't.

  14. Okay obviously someone hasn't been paying attention otherwise they would already know the outcome.
    Also the definition if constructive criticism: is the process of offering valid and well reasoned opinions about the work of others, involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one.
    So not so much constructive.
    Mikael I think you are doing a great job of bringing us along on your journey. I think that all of the little things really do help show all of us the ways our business (and maybe personal) dealings can go wrong if we don't take care. Thank you.

  15. Callie, obviously you aren't a detail person or you would be able to see the difference in the posts of the last five days. You're accounting of them is an overview and you're absolultely correct that the overview is the same; they behaved dishonestly.

    Each post is about a different situation where they manipulated information to claim they were owned money, when in fact they were not. While the only thing important to you might be to know they acted fraudently, it is not the only thing important to the court.

    This series of posts is about what I had to do to get my horse back. To do that I had to work within the framework the court provided and that means I had to focus on the details because the court wants to know specifically "how" they behaved in a fraudenlent manner.

    Each one of these posts is an important part of that information and accounts for the descrepenacy in dollars between what BG and WF claimed was done and what I claim was done.

    If these details aren't important to you, that's ok. You don't have to read if you don't want to. BUT these details were very much important to how I was able to get my horse and are very much the story of how I did that so I will continued telling the story the way those pieces came together.

    I understand that pointing out over and over through each piece what the behavior represents may seem redundant but it too is a part of the process of the law. You just don't ever assume someone gets what you're saying, you reiterate your points. It's just how it's done. You do it in the paperwork and you do it in hearings and when you don't, it costs you.

    Should you ever find yourself involved in any kind of lawsuit, details will need to be very important to you too. WF and BG's attorney had no details and she was pretty much crippled by that. Believe me, those odd little details that all add up to being in violation of the law are what count.

    Nicole, thanks, I'm glad it's understandable to you.

  16. All of your readers are enjoying, and learning from, your posts. You can't just walk into a courtroom and state your opinion on a topic and hope they believe. It works in the movies but not in real!

    As for Legs' height, I guess it was the fog due to lack of sleep with sick kids that made me think he was about 16 hands:) I'm always on the lookout for tall Arabs.

  17. Dandy obviously thinks he's the bee's knees. Too cute.

    So glad you decided to go all the way with this case.

  18. horsemom, thanks for weighing in on this. I do think that some of the reptitiveness of this can get boring and I believe I do have readers who are bored with it as Callie. It is understandable if all you are interested in is the overview but to deal with the actual court part means you have to deal with the broing repetitive parts of it.

    I respect Callie stepped up and said her piece.I wish there was a way to write this that could make it less boring and less repetitive but it is the darn process. To be helpful to those who want to or need to know I will proceed as I have been.

    I will say that I have gotten many responses from this series and overwhelmingly they are in support of it as it is being written. There are at least two readers who have privately contacted me involved in their own legal battles utliziing this information. I must admit that surprised me. I had hoped the information would be useful to others but I thought that would be somewhere down the road. I had no idea it would be important right now.

    Legs had had kids that are 16H, a couple of them and the two coming four year old stallions I expect will reach that height looking at their height now. I suspect that Dandy is the horse you are thinking of as 16H. He is a quarter of an inch shy of that. So you're not as foggy as you think. You just got the wrong horse. They are full brothers so the height is in there. LOL

    BTW, today it dawned on me where you get lessons....... so if you want to talk about fog or DUH! moments, there's mine. Say "HI" to L for me.

  19. I'm not sure who L is? The only L I talk about in my blog is my little boy. We don't have anyone at my barn with that initial, maybe you are thinking of the wrong place.

  20. horsemom, ok, well then I am truly in a fog. I must have misread. LOL